Bullshidoka Arguments

In another thread, someone mentioned putting together a list of arguments that we've seen from Bullshidoka about why they can't/won't provide information. The idea was to put together a numbered list so the Bullshido investigator can respond to an attempted argument by simply saying, "Your last post is #12 on the Bullshidoka Arguments page" rather than clutter the thread.

I put this in MABS because it is directly relevant to any number of Bullshido investigations. I believe the user knowledge base here can identify certain patterns of behavior among the subjects of our investigations (and their supporters) who make every effort to avoid posting reasonable answers to our questions.

For example, I'll quote Is It Fake?? from the comba-tai thread:

Originally Posted by Is It Fake??

I'm watching you justify name calling and group accusations as a debate skill. Yes, I have read and helped on a few investigations. The ones that turn out like this end up with the person begging us to ask for information than saying "NO you are mean."

With that example, I'll start the list

Bullshidoka Argument #1 - Demanding that we train with or under the subject of the investigation before we make any conclusions about his claims.

Counter - An experienced martial artist can make reasonable judgments about someone else's level of skill or expertise. Although first hand experience is effective, informed judgments can be drawn from video clips and other media. This may not stand alone as conclusive proof of anything, but it can be a factor that raises the red flag of bullshido.

Counter - Similar to the counter for argument #1. The presence of skilled practioners of a variety of styles is one of Bullshido.net's greatest assests. That said, you don't have to be able to sing to identify someone who can't (American Idol, anyone?).

Bullshidoka Argument #3 - Refusal to provide information because people were not polite.
This argument also sets the stage for a future refusal to provide information even to a polite request - the Bullshidoka need merely say, "I am not providing information to any of you because you were mean to me."

Counter - Subtance over form. If the person is willing and able to provide information that would help prove their point, it is reasonable to assume that they would do so in most situations.

Bullshidoka Argument #4 - Claims that the investigation has gone beyond its original purpose. For example, a man who claims an impressive but unverified tournament record is also found to have claimed military or law enforcement experience, but the subject or his supporters get upset because that wasn't the original point of the investigation.

Counter - The investigative process involves gathering as much relevant information as possible, forming a preliminary hypothesis, and then finding evidence that will substantiate or unsubstantiate that hypothesis. Throughout the entire process, the hypothesis is reviewed, updated, and modified, based on new information. Supplemental information may be relevant to the hypothesis that the person has lied about or misrepresented parts of his history to bolster his own authority (usually as it relates to MA).

Bullshidoka Argument #5 - Makes a number of suggestions about additional questions which are not relevant to the issues at hand. Takes the position that a lack of interest in following up irrelevant information reveals an intentional double-standard in the investigative process. The "suggestions" can also be accusatory - "Why didn't you ask Jane if Jack's karate made him a better family man?"

Counter - Simple explanation about why that line of questions isn't relevant.

"Reason is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means to discovering them. Reason is our only way to grasping reality -- it's our basic tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking, to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss we refuse to see."
- Terry Goodkind, "Faith of the Fallen"

#9 - Argument by Distraction. This category includes claims to have made people angry/upset, claims of a conpiracy against the subject, or anything else that tries to distract posters from the issue at hand.

Counter - Ignore it. If you react to it, you only clutter the thread. I suppose we could repeat the motivation for the investigation as often as necessary, or at least reference it. Example, "No, we're not trying to bring down the man out of jealousy. If you read post #1 and the rest of this thread, you can see that he has made exceptional claims without providing any envidence to support them."

"Reason is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means to discovering them. Reason is our only way to grasping reality -- it's our basic tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking, to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss we refuse to see."
- Terry Goodkind, "Faith of the Fallen"

Bullshidoka Argument # 10 - Requesting that those who are investigating, provide the same information that is being asked for them.

This tactic is used to "throw the dogs off your scent" so to speak. It makes everyone look at the accuser and not the accused. Nothing wrong with making sure that the person acting as the accuser is not doing so in a malicious way but in an honest attempt to gather important facts but it shouldn't allow the accused a free ride just because the accuser was dishonest in his/her investigative intent.

Counter - If the accused does bring up important information about the accuser then start a new thread about the accuser but keep the original thread on track with regards to the accused.

*Edit*

This one may seem similar to one mentioned above about the ability of other posters to judge the one being investigated but it is not. This one is pointed more towards the investigated individual accusing the originator of the investigation of wrongdoing as a means of removing pressure from him/herself.

This argument tactic can vary along the continuum from the literal, in the form of the shared account, to the tag-team approach (typically teacher/student), to a shotgun approach, with multiple posters from the same school/dojo posting different messages with widely divergent styles (crude and threatening, pleading, conciliatory, wordy) hoping that one succeeds. A good cop/bad cop variation of this is to have the crazy, unhinged student poster says "u guyz r gonna die" and the apologetic "let's just forget all of this" teacher. Also includes multiple accounts, although this tactic is crude and obvious.

Counter- Demand to know who is who as precisely as possible, and clarify the situation. Are you Sifu X? Are you a student of Sifu X? If it is the sifu/sensei/subject of the investigation, ask them what their precise stance or relationship is to the other posts or statements of their friends and students.

Bullshidoka Argument #2
Rebuttal: But at least you should have heard them sing. Also, often what novices say is good, experience says otherwise.

Bullshidoka Argument #3
Rebuttal: Understandable opinion coming from someone as disrespectful as you. People give free information because they want to. If they are insulted they probably will not, after all, why should they.

Bullshidoka Argument #4
Rebuttal: Possibly. However it may be that you could not prove a point and needed to go after other information to win your argument. Especially if you perceive you are losing.

Bullshidoka Argument #5
Rebuttle – Information should be given to Bullshido when the person fills like giving it. No one should fill like they are being bullied into giving anything.

I think this is important because anyone we point to this thread is going to make similar rebuttals, usually by restating the original argument and insisting that it's valid.

Notice how his first rebuttal is almost exactly the point of the counter.
Same with the second.
His rebuttal to the third argument is essentially the third argument over again - you were mean, so people aren't going to give you information.
The fourth rebuttal is indicative of a lack of understanding about the investigative process. Yet again, the rebuttal is the argument itself.
The fifth rebuttal seems to indicate that we should be glad to get any information, even if it isn't relevant to the investigation. I agree that no one should (ideally) feel bullied into providing information, but that's the way an investigation works. If you make a claim, it's your responsibility to support it.

"Reason is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means to discovering them. Reason is our only way to grasping reality -- it's our basic tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking, to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss we refuse to see."
- Terry Goodkind, "Faith of the Fallen"

He used to be a great fighter but is now injured/fat usually do to one of the unverifiable d34dly martial arts bouts in his past. This goes along with he used to be a violent and dangerous person but now sees that martial arts are meant for peace. I'm using the third person because this argument is most often supplied by a student.

Bullshido answer: Then he should be able to produce a student that can fight or else he has no business teaching at all.

This may fit into the general category of resting on one's unverifiable laurels.